Yes, it's an entirely different issue. And for what it's worth - I may like the idea (but don't know enough about it) of legalization and government control of all drugs. And then tax the **** out of all of it.

The point is, we draw lines all the time. Alcohol is ok, marijuana is not. We've made that decision. Certain weapons are ok, others are not. There's always going to be a debate on where the line is drawn. It doesn't mean we shouldn't make decisions on where the line is, or moving it if it makes sense to.

I'm sure I mentioned it 20 page ago but I feel like the liberal agenda(if we want to call it that) likes to crack open doors and see what else they can get thru once it's cracked. The conservative side tends to slam it, lock it and block it. I'm not sure which is the action or which is the reaction but I believe that's why there's so much gridlock in the US.

I prefer to look at it as "OK, what's next?" If I was in charge, change would be slow simply because I'd want to review the effect BEFORE it happened. As for SSM, and the reasons to allow it listed in this thread, I think it allows for polygamy. And a whole bunch of laws. I don't care much either way about SSM or polygamy but I'd like to get it sorted out before giving it a rubber stamp.

I'd love to talk about the issues re: gay marriage. And they are...? (And saying "But if you accept gay marriage, you have to accept polygamous marriage" isn't an issue. Because, no, you don't, as they're 2 different things.)

This.

Mike is perfectly willing to list the issues he has with polygamy but unwilling to list the "issues" that exist for gay marriage.

But the reason you've given against SSM is that another door would open. There's always a door open, there's always a "next in line", always a debate. Then you make a decision on it. I don't believe that if the door opens to allow something, it's the equivalent of opening floodgates.

If there are actual issues with SSM, in a vacuum, on it's own, let's talk about them.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/4/2013 12:05:00 PM (view original):I'm sure I mentioned it 20 page ago but I feel like the liberal agenda(if we want to call it that) likes to crack open doors and see what else they can get thru once it's cracked. The conservative side tends to slam it, lock it and block it. I'm not sure which is the action or which is the reaction but I believe that's why there's so much gridlock in the US.

I prefer to look at it as "OK, what's next?" If I was in charge, change would be slow simply because I'd want to review the effect BEFORE it happened. As for SSM, and the reasons to allow it listed in this thread, I think it allows for polygamy. And a whole bunch of laws. I don't care much either way about SSM or polygamy but I'd like to get it sorted out before giving it a rubber stamp.

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.

As for drug legalization, control and taxation seems like a great idea on the surface. But, unlike SSM, I think more people would try stuff they haven't tried before. That doesn't seem good. There's no way to know how the current dealers would react(I suspect "not good"). Or the drug cartels. The effect on work production. The laws on drug testing for legal drugs(I'm in trucking and I don't want my guys smoking legal pot before getting behind the wheel). The ramifications seem endless.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/4/2013 12:09:00 PM (view original):But the reason you've given against SSM is that another door would open. There's always a door open, there's always a "next in line", always a debate. Then you make a decision on it. I don't believe that if the door opens to allow something, it's the equivalent of opening floodgates.

If there are actual issues with SSM, in a vacuum, on it's own, let's talk about them.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/4/2013 12:09:00 PM (view original):But the reason you've given against SSM is that another door would open. There's always a door open, there's always a "next in line", always a debate. Then you make a decision on it. I don't believe that if the door opens to allow something, it's the equivalent of opening floodgates.

If there are actual issues with SSM, in a vacuum, on it's own, let's talk about them.

We don't live in a vacuum.

Two men getting married. Don't think I care as the same laws of common decency apply to them.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/4/2013 12:09:00 PM (view original):As for drug legalization, control and taxation seems like a great idea on the surface. But, unlike SSM, I think more people would try stuff they haven't tried before. That doesn't seem good. There's no way to know how the current dealers would react(I suspect "not good"). Or the drug cartels. The effect on work production. The laws on drug testing for legal drugs(I'm in trucking and I don't want my guys smoking legal pot before getting behind the wheel). The ramifications seem endless.

Obviously you don't want your truck drivers smoking pot, just like you don't want them drunk. There would be laws against being stoned and driving.

I agree that there are other ramifications to full drug legalization we'd have to consider. It's possible it does more harm than good.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/4/2013 12:09:00 PM (view original):But the reason you've given against SSM is that another door would open. There's always a door open, there's always a "next in line", always a debate. Then you make a decision on it. I don't believe that if the door opens to allow something, it's the equivalent of opening floodgates.

If there are actual issues with SSM, in a vacuum, on it's own, let's talk about them.

We don't live in a vacuum.

Two men getting married. Don't think I care as the same laws of common decency apply to them.

But we don't live in a vacuum.

Is that an acceptable answer?

No, but we can debate the merits of gay marriage without worrying about polygamy. As you've pointed out over and over again, there are issues related to polygamy that don't exist for gay marriage.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/4/2013 12:09:00 PM (view original):But the reason you've given against SSM is that another door would open. There's always a door open, there's always a "next in line", always a debate. Then you make a decision on it. I don't believe that if the door opens to allow something, it's the equivalent of opening floodgates.

If there are actual issues with SSM, in a vacuum, on it's own, let's talk about them.

We don't live in a vacuum.

Two men getting married. Don't think I care as the same laws of common decency apply to them.

But we don't live in a vacuum.

Is that an acceptable answer?

Yes and no. We don't live in a vacuum, everything we do affects something else. But "bringing up the topic of polgyamous marriage" doesn't seem like a big enough issue to not allow gay marriage. Every issue is dealt with as they come up.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/4/2013 12:09:00 PM (view original):As for drug legalization, control and taxation seems like a great idea on the surface. But, unlike SSM, I think more people would try stuff they haven't tried before. That doesn't seem good. There's no way to know how the current dealers would react(I suspect "not good"). Or the drug cartels. The effect on work production. The laws on drug testing for legal drugs(I'm in trucking and I don't want my guys smoking legal pot before getting behind the wheel). The ramifications seem endless.

Obviously you don't want your truck drivers smoking pot, just like you don't want them drunk. There would be laws against being stoned and driving.

I agree that there are other ramifications to full drug legalization we'd have to consider. It's possible it does more harm than good.

There is a difference between alcohol and pot. Dopers don't want to admit it but there is.

I have a beer, takes 10 minutes to down it, I'm not ****** up.
I smoke a joint, takes 5 minutes to burn it, I'm ****** up.

I know dopers and alkies are both prone to say "Nah, I'm alright" but it's just so much easier to "get a buzz" with pot. That's why it's legal for a driver to drink on his own time and not smoke pot during that same own time.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/4/2013 12:09:00 PM (view original):But the reason you've given against SSM is that another door would open. There's always a door open, there's always a "next in line", always a debate. Then you make a decision on it. I don't believe that if the door opens to allow something, it's the equivalent of opening floodgates.

If there are actual issues with SSM, in a vacuum, on it's own, let's talk about them.

We don't live in a vacuum.

Two men getting married. Don't think I care as the same laws of common decency apply to them.

But we don't live in a vacuum.

Is that an acceptable answer?

Yes and no. We don't live in a vacuum, everything we do affects something else. But "bringing up the topic of polgyamous marriage" doesn't seem like a big enough issue to not allow gay marriage. Every issue is dealt with as they come up.

OK, if I were to concede your point of "Every issue is dealt with as they come up", do you think polygamous marriage is right around the corner once SSM is universally accepted?